Im a fan of hip hop so I was never into Nirvana or anything, but I always fall into a similar arguement when someone mentions Tupac and hows he is the greatest of all time. Before he died he wasnt even the best artist on his label, but in death your legend grows. Of course I think The Notorious B.I.G. was the greatest rapper ever but people can use my same argument against me.

I do think it is a bit soon to call "Nirvana" legendary, but it's sad that people would dismiss the credibility of an artist, going so far as to say they could never be a "legend," and categorize their music as merely "three chords and screaming" just because they don't like their music. For example: aside from their bad-ass rhythm section of John Bonham and John Paul Jones, I really dislike Led Zepplin. (I hate Robert Plant's singing and I don't care for Jimmy Page's guitar work.) But just because I don't like their music doesn't mean that I would say they aren't "legendary." Maybe in another 10 years we can call Nirvana "legendary" when we see how they have continued to influence music. A lot of the artists right now that have been "influenced" by Nirvana were most likely past a stage of their life where their true tastes were being formed. Not to say that people who were 13 when they first heard Nirvana when they hit the mainstream will necessarily be any better, but the continuing impact that "legendary" bands of yore have is also factored into their equation.

But to have changed the way mainstream music was treated in the way that Nirvana did, there's something to that. The inference here is that Nirvana's "legend" is more hype than substance, but with the legions of Nirvana fans that still exist, 8 years after Kurt's death (how does a man dead of a heroin overdose shoot himself with a gun ), it's easy to see it wasn't mere hype. Mere hype would have worn off by now on all but the most hard-core of fans. There was just something there that struck a chord in a lot of people. Those people may have changed since then, but they still regard Nirvana as one of their favorite bands of all time and probably remember with some fondness the way they were when they first heard the music. That rings true with fans of almost every "legendary" band or artist.

And to categorize their music as merely "three chords and screaming" is just plain underrating Kurt's abilities. Kurt knew how to write a melody, he just chose to write his music in a style similar to the dirty punk rock he loved so much. But his pop sensibilities were strong enough to keep them away from a pure punk, "slash, thrash and scream" sound, and that was the right combination to make a lot of people love this band the first time they heard them. Maybe you'd have liked them if they threw in a few "widdly-widdly-rowr" guitar leads that Beavis and Butthead liked to sing along to and fifteen minute wailing solos that show how fast a guitarist can play his scales and Kurt sang about "makin' love" in a voice that sounded like his balls had been cut off, but they left that out for those of us that never cared for them in the first place. (Or maybe people shouldn't make generalizations about bands and genres they aren't really familiar with.)

I will always like Nirvana. I grew up in Olympia, WA and got my hands on a copy of Bleach in 8th grade round the age of 15 I guess. I loved that tape then Nevermind and I loved that one as well. I was shocked to see them do a video, but I was way more shocked at the way they took off. I think their third CD Insecticide was their best. I don't know if I can say that Nirvana changed my life, but I can say when ever I listen to them it takes me back to a very interesting time in my life.

I can't believe all the hatred that Cobain garners around here... unfortunate because the man IS a legend. I will be the first to admit that his music is far from complicated, but that was the point. Kind of like the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" theory. Their music worked so well because of its simplicity.

The pure emotion that sprung from his lungs is something that Eddie Vedder only WISHES he could put on an album.

Granted, I was a huge Pearl Jam fan at one point in time, but I soon realized that everything after Ten sucked. There really is no comparing Eddie to Cobain. Eddie is a mark for himself, moreso than Cobain ever was. So much so that Nirvana had to bail Pearl Jam out of that Headbangers Ball so long ago when they wouldn't play.

Yes, there was an overabundance of talented acts in Seattle at the same time or prior to Nirvana, but none were as important at the time because Cobain had the rock star power to draw people to him. People cared about what he did, and his stage presence was second to none. I still stand by my statement that the last two legitimate rock stars since John Lennon are/were Kurt Cobain and Axl Rose. No one comes close. Not Vedder. Not Cornell. Not Staley. And especially not any of the "nu metal" lead singers (with the possible exception of Serj Tankian).

I also consider Pearl Jam to be worlds more influential than Nirvana...just look how many nu-metal bands today have singers that sound like Ed Vedder.

True, but Vedder's sound (and this relates to the old theory that abounded back in '93 about Stone Temple Pilots being a Pearl Jam ripoff) owes more to Jim Morrison than anything else and considering the lasting impact that the Doors have had among rock musicians, I'd say the current nu-metal singers have just as much influence coming from Morrison as from Vedder.

Cobain's voice closely resembles Robin Zander of Cheap Trick and Ric Ocasek of the Cars, pop bands that influenced Kurt in the 70s and 80s and two singers who are well remembered but don't seem to have the lasting influence among current musicians that Morrison does.

As far as the influence Nirvana had, the only band that seemed to have taken from (not in a negative sense) was Local H, a band that had some success in the mid-90s with a single ironically titled "Eddie Vedder." I don't know much about them, other than a show they did in Texas that is popular among tape traders that consisted solely of Nirvana covers (they did the show around the same time as they garnered mainstream success, so I think it was a joke/homage). The title of the "next Nirvana" is something that was almost ruined when some journalists tried to pin it to B*U*S*H and I think most bands would rather avoid having direct comparisons to Nirvana so they don't get overwhelmed by the accompanying hype.

Wow I am also shocked at the Nirvana bashing. I guess you had to be a teenager/college kid in the early 90's to appreciate Nirvana. Here we were force fed New Kids and Paula Abdul for years and along comes "Smells Like Teen Spirit." It captured the feeling of my generation at the time and thrust Nirvana into stardom.

As for Kurt Kobain, the guy was not a genius. Anybody who has EVER been in a band does not get in a band for the "art." Anyone that says otheriwse is a dirty liar. They look at bands in their youth and say "I want to be famous!" So for guys like Eddie Vedder and Kobain to whine about being famous always pissed me off. They have it made and all they di is whine about the art. Screw that.

But Nevermind- like 10, Dirt, Superunknown, Core, The Bends- is one of those CD's from what I call the Second Golden Age of Rock N' Roll that I can listen to from start to finish with out skipping a song. That, IMO is the mark of a legendary album.

I think if you are in the passing lane, and not passing, your license should be revoked, and you should be forced to ride the bus until you promise to never delay the rest of us again.--George Carlin

Nirvana was a good change from the crap that the radio and mtv was shoving down our throats. Kurt wasn't the best lead singer in the world, or a good role model, but he never wanted to be so I guess it equals out. I was 9 when "Smells like Teen Spirit" hit the airwaves and I would have much rather listen to that then the same 3 songs that everybody was plugging at the time.

Maybe Cobain wouldn't have whined so much if people could spell his name correctly... I also don't remember him whining about the art nearly as much as you say, nor do I really understand what you mean by artists whining about the art. Are you saying that artists get upset because when they "make it", their style/sound is compromised to fit into the mainstream musical universe? If so, that is the absolute truth. Purchase a copy of Bleach, crank that mother up, and listen to it the whole way through. Now do the same with In Utero. You cannot possibly tell me that there are not two distinctively different sounds. Granted, both were/are good, but they are still very different.

Cobain knew that he was just a corporate tool in the first place. He acknowledges this on the first song on In Utero with the lyric "Teenage angst has paid off well, now I'm old and bored." If that isn't recognizing how small your world is, then I don't know what is.

As far as him not being a genius, that might just be one of the most absurd things that I have ever heard. He was a marketing, promotional, songwriting, lyrical genius. No, he couldn't calculate the theory of relativity, but the man knew exactly what it took to sell millions and millions of records. It's the simplicity that's so appealing. Combine that with the raw emotion of his screaming lyrics, and you have platinum record after platinum record. The image that he created for himself as a nihilist, sarcastic wise ass who didn't care about anything in the world perfectly fit the feelings of teenagers when that Teen Spirit broke onto the scene.

Originally posted by KidbrooklynCobain knew that he was just a corporate tool in the first place.

No, he couldn't calculate the theory of relativity, but the man knew exactly what it took to sell millions and millions of records.

So which is it? If he was a corporate pawn and hated it so much, why did he submit to it and market himself so he could sell so many records. If it's all about the art, then selling records shouldn't really enter into it.

Anyway, I never saw Cobain as a genius. I thought he wrote some good songs, and some bad songs. Some I enjoyed, some I hated. Was he influential? Immensely so. Was he needed? Yes. But for my money, Pearl Jam was a better band, with better songs, and would have been just as infuential as Nirvana if given the chance. Especially since they haven't succumbed to the eMpTV and Ticketmaster music world.

Edit: FFej said, "Here we were force fed New Kids and Paula Abdul for years and along comes "Smells Like Teen Spirit." It captured the feeling of my generation at the time and thrust Nirvana into stardom."

Force fed? From who? I mean, no matter what crap they play on the radio and eMpTV, there's always, always good music out there. At the time that Nevermind came out, U2 was releasing Achtung, Baby. And Achtung, Baby is a far better album. Also, Metallica changed their sound and came out with their black album. I have never been into Metallica too much myself, but still, it's a good album. Pearl Jam's Ten was released almost simultaneously to Nevermind. Red Hot Chili Peppers came out with their best album Blood Sugar Sex Magic. All were better albums, and I thought so at the time as well. You just needed to change the radio station.

On Nirvana: They had lyrics that people wanted to hear. That got them popular. I still think lyrics are underrated when considering how good a band is. Hey for the longest time, I was convinced that Cobain was a great writer, until I started listening to certian other bands (*ahem* Manic Street Preachers *ahem*) that were actually saying something IMPORTANT rather than "I'm bored, the world sucks, I hate rich people." But that's what everyone wanted to hear.

By the way, anyone else read/hear of NME? Their list of top 10 songs of the Ninetys was pretty interesting to say the least. I only remember 4 off it:1. Smells like teen spirit2. A Design for life3. Vogue8. Motorcycle emptiness.....Anyways, if anyone can find the full list on their sh*tty website now, I'd appreciate a link

First off, I was about 12 when Nevermind came out. It was a fine album, and surely I enjoyed it, so I'll forever be a fan of Nirvana. However, it didn't shape my life the way it shaped some of my classmates' lives. I don't think you can look back on something and say "what a teeming pile of crap" without considering the environment.

Secondly, Local H's biggest hit was Bound For the Floor. Eddie Vedder was their second most popular track, but it never got much airplay. That album's actually pretty cool, IMO, and they didn't get near the rub they should have. The most popular song on the radio that has Eddie Vedder in the title is "Me & Eddie Vedder" by the Rugburns, which is a pretty f funny song.

Originally posted by rockstarI do think it is a bit soon to call "Nirvana" legendary, but it's sad that people would dismiss the credibility of an artist, going so far as to say they could never be a "legend," and categorize their music as merely "three chords and screaming" just because they don't like their music. For example: aside from their bad-ass rhythm section of John Bonham and John Paul Jones, I really dislike Led Zepplin. (I hate Robert Plant's singing and I don't care for Jimmy Page's guitar work.) But just because I don't like their music doesn't mean that I would say they aren't "legendary." Maybe in another 10 years we can call Nirvana "legendary" when we see how they have continued to influence music. A lot of the artists right now that have been "influenced" by Nirvana were most likely past a stage of their life where their true tastes were being formed. Not to say that people who were 13 when they first heard Nirvana when they hit the mainstream will necessarily be any better, but the continuing impact that "legendary" bands of yore have is also factored into their equation.

But to have changed the way mainstream music was treated in the way that Nirvana did, there's something to that. The inference here is that Nirvana's "legend" is more hype than substance, but with the legions of Nirvana fans that still exist, 8 years after Kurt's death (how does a man dead of a heroin overdose shoot himself with a gun ), it's easy to see it wasn't mere hype. Mere hype would have worn off by now on all but the most hard-core of fans. There was just something there that struck a chord in a lot of people. Those people may have changed since then, but they still regard Nirvana as one of their favorite bands of all time and probably remember with some fondness the way they were when they first heard the music. That rings true with fans of almost every "legendary" band or artist.

And to categorize their music as merely "three chords and screaming" is just plain underrating Kurt's abilities. Kurt knew how to write a melody, he just chose to write his music in a style similar to the dirty punk rock he loved so much. But his pop sensibilities were strong enough to keep them away from a pure punk, "slash, thrash and scream" sound, and that was the right combination to make a lot of people love this band the first time they heard them. Maybe you'd have liked them if they threw in a few "widdly-widdly-rowr" guitar leads that Beavis and Butthead liked to sing along to and fifteen minute wailing solos that show how fast a guitarist can play his scales and Kurt sang about "makin' love" in a voice that sounded like his balls had been cut off, but they left that out for those of us that never cared for them in the first place. (Or maybe people shouldn't make generalizations about bands and genres they aren't really familiar with.)

When I dismiss Kurt Cobain's ability I do so as a guitarist who is doubly frustrated... first by the fact that I'm no where near where I'd like to be on the instrument... and second by the fact that despite this I can still play better than half the so-called guitarists who hit it big in Nirvana's wake.

I've got no problem with screaming, being a fan of melodic heavy metal and even some of the more melodic nu-metal bands. The problem with Kurt Cobain was not that he screamed, but that when he tried to sing he couldn't! Just listen to Nirvana Unplugged.

You have a point about there being a place for simple music... early U2 being an example. Pre-Joshua Tree U2 made very simple music... the difference being that A) Bono can sing and B) Their lyrics made sense. Even when you could understand him (which wasn't often) Kurt's lyrics made no sense.

One of the great tragedies of the grunge era that has sadly gone unnoticed is that people have become convinced that happy=shallow. Rock and Roll is about having fun. I can't help but think that Little Richard and Chuck Berry (both still alive) are watching modern rock music and wondering what the hell happened to what they supposedly started.

Well, as a guitarist Cobain was awesome FOR PLAYING IN A PUNK BAND. Seriously, I'm getting a little sick of people in this thread saying that he wasn't Eddie Van Halen or Bono. He wasn't trying to be. He sang songs of the walking wounded. Saying he should sing like Chris Cornell would be like saying Johnny Cash should let Pavorotti sing his songs. His passion for what he played shined through any of his so-called "technical" deficincies. I'd rather have someone who cares about what they are playing play 3 chords than have Yngwie Malmstein play 400 songs just to see how fast he can go.

As for his lyrics. They are great and if you don't think so, you must not like Bob Dylan or any modern poetry. Sure they are depressing, and it's pretty pathetic that SOOO many new bands try to cop that vibe, but he had an excuse. MANIC DEPRESSION + SEVERE & CONSTANT STOMACH PAIN + DRUG ADDICTION + ABUSIVE UPBRINGING = YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BE A LITTLE DARK.

Originally posted by astrobstrdWell, as a guitarist Cobain was awesome FOR PLAYING IN A PUNK BAND. Seriously, I'm getting a little sick of people in this thread saying that he wasn't Eddie Van Halen or Bono. He wasn't trying to be. He sang songs of the walking wounded. Saying he should sing like Chris Cornell would be like saying Johnny Cash should let Pavorotti sing his songs. His passion for what he played shined through any of his so-called "technical" deficincies. I'd rather have someone who cares about what they are playing play 3 chords than have Yngwie Malmstein play 400 songs just to see how fast he can go.

As for his lyrics. They are great and if you don't think so, you must not like Bob Dylan or any modern poetry. Sure they are depressing, and it's pretty pathetic that SOOO many new bands try to cop that vibe, but he had an excuse. MANIC DEPRESSION + SEVERE & CONSTANT STOMACH PAIN + DRUG ADDICTION + ABUSIVE UPBRINGING = YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BE A LITTLE DARK.

Whoa. Calm down, have a smoothie. I never said he should've tried to be anything other than what he was. I just said I wasn't a big fan of some aspects of it. I don't think he should have tried to be anyone else, it just didn't completely work for me. Hell, I even SAID I liked his lyrics. I just wondered what a pairing of his songwriting and someone else's voice and musicianship would've sounded like. I don't think it's demeaning to wonder what Kurt would write for someone else to perform, or to wonder how that would sound.

Kansas-born and deeply ashamedThe last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!

I wasn't replying just to you. Your post just brought this thread back up to the top and reminded me how funny it was when people were saying that Kurt Cobain sucks because he is neither Joe Satriani or Don Dokken. Or when people were saying, "Nirvana's lyrics suck, they're not about evil robots and killing the government like Megadeth (I like Megadeth before anyone flames me on that)."

Originally posted by astrobstrdI wasn't replying just to you. Your post just brought this thread back up to the top and reminded me how funny it was when people were saying that Kurt Cobain sucks because he is neither Joe Satriani or Don Dokken. Or when people were saying, "Nirvana's lyrics suck, they're not about evil robots and killing the government like Megadeth (I like Megadeth before anyone flames me on that)."

Hmm... see, now you're making me wonder what Kurt's take on giant robots would've been. (:

And I'll give Megadeth credit for being pretty much the only metal band I know of that wrote a song about the plight of farmers. It always made me think of some crusty old Midwestern guy, driving around on his tractor and headbanging until he falls off.

Kansas-born and deeply ashamedThe last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!

I was finishing up high school and going to college in 1991-1992, when Nirvana hit it big. Believe me, in both New Jersey and then Florida, I heard them quite a bit.

I think my problem is with calling Nirvana or Kurt Cobain a "legend." Had it simply been left at Nirvana and Cobain being a great band/musician whose respective ends came way too soon, I'd agree completely. But to call them legendary when they only had two major studio albums released seems a bit too much for me. It'd be like me declaring Mutha's Day Out to be a legendary band - even though they only put out one album. I think legends are around for a longer time and explore different musical directions compared to what Nirvana's two studio albums did.

(Also, it could be that my ex was a huge Nirvana fan. But I digress... )

I didn't take any notes for this show and it's now been two weeks, so I suspect this will be a short one. Taking immediate notes is something I need to do more of; these are a lot easier to write when I have a few bullet points to work with.